JOHN F. KENNEDY
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (67)
sorted by:
The Gulf of Tonkin attack did occur, perhaps not quite as advertised but yes the North Vietnamese boats did attack the Maddox, although LBJ lied about the second attack 2 days later on the 4th. Yeah the Maddox was collecting data, but she was in International waters. The North Vietnamese were wanting to fight because we had been assisting the South Vietnamese with operations on land and now some of that was being done offshore. The Maddox was collecting Intel data for use by the South - locating radars and navigation aids and cataloguing shipping for instance.
But yeah LBJ did lie, the Maddox was attacked once, not twice. She had noticed North Vietnamese boats tracking her and allowed them to chase her off, then 2 days later she resumed her patrol closer to the coast, in international waters but just offshore of the North. The Maddox again detected patrol boats stalking her, and was released to fire warning shots if they approached. They did approach and the warning shots were fired, however the warning shots prompted the boats to attack, not retreat.
The Maddox then fled out to sea while the Navy flew in to provide air cover, as the Maddox evaded the torpedo fired at her the planes did wreck some North Vietnamese boats. That attack happened, in international waters.
But Johnson lied about the second attack, the Maddox and a second destroyer the Turner Joy were spoofed by their own radar and sonar equipment and inexperienced operators, false returns in bad weather made them think they were under attack but they were shooting at ghosts. Navy pilots flying cover saw no enemy vessels, they existed on the two ships' screens only.
So the attack was real but also was false - typical LBJ sleight-of-hand.
Johnson had a bad habit of lying and using American forces as cannon fodder to push his political agendas, much like FDR did. LBJ lied about the U,S.S. Liberty too- he knew he sent that ship into a War Exclusion zone after promising the Israelis he would not do so. Worse, after she came under attack the Israelis asked him again and he lied again, saying she was not our ship.
I think this was the main reason he didn't run for POTUS in '67.
Your information is correct, however the Maddox was not attacked without provocation. The warning shot they fired was considered an attack. Only then did the patrol boats return fire. This is not an attack, but a defensive response. The wording does matter. The same wordplay can be used to change the concept of self defense into an attack. The gun/torpedo boats did not pose a significant risk to the destroyer because of their inferior torpedoes. My best friend was in the Navy at the time of the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Although he was not there, one of his best friends from the same town in Pennsylvania was aboard the Ticonderoga as a radar tech ET. He has a letter from him that explained the whole situation in the initial confrontation and the subsequent "attack" 2 days later. The OS's detected ghost images on the radar screen of the repeater, however the aircraft providing overwatch verified that there was no targets. Weapons were engaged, but no targets were hit, because there were none. There was no confusion aboard the carrier or on the destroyers, they knew it was a false alarm. The "attacks" by the North Vietnamese never happened. 3 torpedo gun boats were no match at all against an aircraft carrier and two destroyers, everyone knew it and the gun/torpedo boats did not attack until they were fired at. They responded in desperate self defense, even though they knew that they had no chance.
Provocations are present daily throughout the world, look at 'us' right now with Russia and NATO or with the cartels or our own borders.
The Maddox had to evade a torpedo fired at it in international waters by the patrol boats, that 'was' a mortal threat and an act of war wasn't it? The patrol boats knew those were warning shots, or would if they followed international maritime laws.
There are maritime rulez and the patrol boats were warned off using guard frequencies, they kept bearing on Maddox in an attack profile and did continue coming after warning shots were lawfully fired. Yeah they returned fire in the sense that a warning shot had been fired by Maddox but the warning shot was preceded by lawful instructions on all the applicable maritime and emergency frequencies.
We can drain a lot of beer deciding who provoked who the mostest or firstest or bestest but the attack by the patrol boats did constitute an act of war. The claimed second attack doesn't matter at that point.
The problem is that we cannot trust the record that has been submitted. The story goes that the gun boats fired a torpedo against US Navy Destroyers that missed after a warning shot was fired. The events recorded in official records are always questionable. We have a long history of instigating war after "provocation" that makes us look innocent. The events leading up to WWI was the sinking of the Lusitania. As history has shown, we lied and stated that the cruise ship was not carrying contraband that was prohibited by the lawful embargo that was established by Germany. This was utilized by the US government as provocation for the declaration of war. WWII was initiated after provocation of the Japanese to incite them to attack the US Naval forces in the Pacific. Radar tower as well as civilian fishing boats on the Hawaiian islands detected and reported the incoming attack aircraft and no notice was given to Pearl Harbor, the warnings were conveyed to DC, but no warnings were given to the Naval forces in Perl Harbor. The only ships in port were obsolete WWI era warships. The modern warships were all conveniently performing an exercise in the North Pacific. Of course, all these events were manipulated by the US government to galvanize a response by the American people to join the respective wars. I am not saying that we should not have gotten involved in those wars, but I find it distasteful that propaganda and manipulation was used to convince the American people to go and fight and die without being truthfully informed.
We cannot trust much of it, true. This is why one must research matters themselves and from many perspectives.
Yeah we should not have joined WWI, I'm not sure who knew the Lusitania was carrying war material but that was proven some years ago when the wreck was examined. It is 'possible' that it was done secretly and our government did not know of it at the time..... we still don't know that part, we only know that she DID indeed carry munitions. Not sure who deceived us is what I'm saying, but we were deceived.
FDR tried several times to lure the Japanese into attacking us, these efforts are well documented and not arguable, they habbened. The Japanese wouldn't take the bait because they had been planning for months to attack all across the Pacific and were not going to jeopardize that over FDR's transparent schemes.
FDR was a lying bar steward, yes he was, and I would say many of his acts border on treason and tyranny. He had his agenda and it wasn't necessarily based on the Constitution.